Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41023034›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Comparative analysis of illumina and oxford nanopore sequencing platforms for 16S rRNA profiling of respiratory microbial communities.

Guillem Macip, Alba Soler-Comas, Andrea Palomeque, Ana Motos, Blanca Llonch, Joan Canseco-Ribas, Leticia Bueno-Freire, Davide Calabretta, Kasra Kiarostami, Roberto Cabrera and 3 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Guillem MacipCiberes-IDIBAPS, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Alba Soler-ComasCiberes-IDIBAPS, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Andrea PalomequeCiberes-IDIBAPS, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Ana MotosCiberes-IDIBAPS, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Blanca LlonchCiberes-IDIBAPS, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Joan Canseco-RibasCiberes-IDIBAPS, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Leticia Bueno-FreireCiberes-IDIBAPS, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Davide CalabrettaCiberes-IDIBAPS, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Kasra KiarostamiCiberes-IDIBAPS, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Roberto CabreraCiberes-IDIBAPS, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Miquel FerrerCiberes-IDIBAPS, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Antoni TorresCiberes-IDIBAPS, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. atorres@recerca.clinic.cat.
Laia Fernandez-BaratCiberes-IDIBAPS, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. lfernan1@recerca.clinic.cat.

Funding

Generalitat de Catalunya SGR 01148 (2021)HOMILUNG No. 101137148ISCIII-FEDER PI21/00725La Caixa Health Research 2018 HR18-00058PYRAMID PID2022-141924OB-I00SEPAR Code: 1536
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The respiratory microbiome plays a crucial role in health and disease, necessitating accurate characterization through high-throughput sequencing technologies. This study provides a comparative analysis of Illumina NextSeq and Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) sequencing platforms for 16 S rRNA profiling of respiratory microbial communities. Illumina sequencing, known for its high accuracy and short-read lengths (~ 300 bp), is widely used for genus-level microbial classification but struggles with species-level resolution due to its limited read length. In contrast, ONT generates full-length 16 S rRNA reads (~ 1,500 bp), enabling higher taxonomic resolution but historically exhibiting higher error rates (5-15%). Analysis of alpha and beta diversity indicated that Illumina captured greater species richness, while community evenness remained comparable between platforms. Beta diversity differences were significant in pig samples but not in human samples, suggesting that sequencing platform effects are more pronounced in complex microbiomes. Taxonomic profiling revealed that Illumina detected a broader range of taxa, while ONT exhibited improved resolution for dominant bacterial species. ANCOM-BC2 differential abundance analysis highlighted platform-specific biases, with ONT overrepresenting certain taxa (e.g., Enterococcus, Klebsiella) while underrepresenting others (e.g., Prevotella, Bacteroides). These findings emphasize that platform selection should align with study Objective: Illumina is ideal for broad microbial surveys, whereas ONT excels in species-level resolution and real-time applications. Future research should explore hybrid sequencing approaches to leverage the strengths of both technologies, thereby improving microbiome characterization in both clinical and preclinical settings.

Indexed as

MicrobiotaNanopore SequencingRespiratory SystemAnimalsBacteriaDatasets as TopicHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansModels, AnimalRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSequence Analysis, RNASwineRNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

PMID41023034
PMCPMC12480654

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.